Navigate:

Edwards looks to N.H. to stay alive

Text Size

-

+

reset

Edwards was the most conservative of the top Democratic candidates in the 2004 field and now is running as the most liberal of the 2008 top tier.
AP Photo

John Edwards, battling signs he may be left behind by Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, is seeking to reinvigorate his candidacy with a new focus on New Hampshire and a renewed emphasis on his populist "two Americas" message, advisers say.

The Edwards advisers say they have concluded that voters may not perceive sharp distinctions within the Democratic field on Iraq -- an issue where Edwards was in the vanguard with a starkly anti-war stance that has dominated his campaign's message.

So Edwards will try to differentiate himself by stressing a message of economic fairness that could appeal to the lower-income and union voters who are essential to his success. The focus is also designed to put him in a strong position with unions as they begin their formal endorsement process in late summer.

In a speech Thursday at New York's Cooper Union, Edwards plans to talk about "one America of opportunity" and preview an agenda that includes tax policy that rewards work instead of just protecting wealth.

He plans to talk about alleviating middle-class debt by reining in predatory lenders and creating opportunities to lift Americans out of poverty by saving families money on the cost of college, gas and health care.

Candidate of substance

Edwards is trying to cast himself as the candidate of substance, with the most specific plans on health care, energy and Iraq. Campaign pollster Harrison Hickman said his research shows that voters see Edwards as "honest, compassionate, charismatic (and) energetic," and he is viewed as "more seasoned" and "better on foreign policy" than he was when he ran in 2004.

Hickman insisted that the campaign is not trying to turn away from its focus on an anti-war message but said Edwards doesn't want to be defined by a single issue, no matter what it is.

"The people who are most passionate about politics right now have been the anti-war people," Hickman said. "There was a reason to speak to them first. They were the ones in the audience who were listening, and it's also something he feels very strongly about."

The Edwards team has also realized that if he wins Iowa -- where he finished second in 2004 -- and then Clinton smashes him in New Hampshire, he could have trouble gaining the momentum he needs going into the huge round of states on Feb. 5.

The team also realizes that he may not be able to win in Iowa if he's down everywhere else, since he won't look like a winner to Hawkeye State voters. So Edwards told activists in Bedford, N.H., recently that he and his wife, Elizabeth, would be spending a lot more time there.

Edwards sounded chipper as he appeared Tuesday morning at the presidential forum of AFSCME, the largest union of public-service workers.

This Dem has no problem

Asked by MSNBC's Chris Matthews why the Democratic Party is having such a hard time connecting with the American people, Edwards shot back with a big smile: "Well, this Democrat's not having trouble connecting with the American people, I can tell you that!"

In fact, though, his campaign has many worries. For starters, Edwards has never really gotten over the scalding publicity for what Republicans and his Democratic opponents call "the three h's" -- the haircut that cost $400, his huge house and his lucrative involvement with a hedge fund.

Like Sen. John McCain on the Republican side, Edwards is likely to encounter a storm of skepticism when he reports his fundraising figures for the three months ending June 30.

Edwards appears on track to raise somewhat less than the $14 million he collected in the first quarter. His aides counter that their budget calls for raising $40 million by the Iowa caucuses. They say that they are on track to achieve that amount and say it will give them plenty for the first contests.

Readers' Comments (85)

****And he's a white male running against a woman and an African-American in states that have resisted change in the past.*** Say it ain't so. That implies there are racists and bigots in the Democrat party. Actually, we've always known that. It just doesn't get acknowledged that often, even inadvertently. Edwards never had a shot at this given that he was the loudest on Iraq. Regardless of discontent with our efforts in Iraq, Americans do not want to just walk away.

John Edwards has already had his Michael Dukakis moment. Remember when Iron Mike had a photo opportunity that showed him riding in a tank wearing a Flying Squirrel leather helmet with goggles? I thought so. The $400 haircut (twice!) doomed the Edwards campaign. That and the phony populist pose. A lovely and talented millionaire with a house bigger even than Al Gore's energy hog, c'mon.. The blue collar workers aren't buying it, and nobody else is shopping for this product.

Is Edwards actually leaving Iowa, it seems he has been their since he came in second in '04. Yes Edwards the "two americas' the ones who have $400 hair cuts and the ones who do not. Its a little old, about three years old. The demise of the Edwards campaign is defined in three things: Hedge Funds, Haircuts, and Hypocrisy

Go find another group of doctors you can sue so everyone can pay more for their health care premiums and you can build a 60,000 sq ft house next time.

Remember to give the double thumb thrust and tell the Tongue Flicking Lurch again for the first and only time about your cathartic moment at your sons funeral. Also don't let the door hit you in the ass.

The only thing missing with this guy is a dress. It is really scary that 10% of democrats would actually vote for this twerp. He says he can carry a southern state. It won't be his home state, North carolina and San Francisco is not a southern state.

I have to agree with the above comments. While harsh, they are pretty accurate and express the views of the 85% or so of people who are not Edwards disciples. I have a question though, about that picture above. Is that a new haircut?

I look at all of the above comments and cannot help but notice NONE of them have any substance. It is the typical GOP talking points of demascualting the Democrats. Trying to paint all Dems as girly-men or wimps. Edwards has joked about his $400 Haircut, he lives a blessed life, one that he hopes all Americans can lead. He truly cares about those in poverty and that is important. Is he perfect? No, but find me any human who is. It is obvious that the GOP is afraid of him, why else would you attack him for the "Three H's" as opposed to his policies and plans. C'mon Politico readers, show that you actually have some smarts and can actually articulate substantive arguments as opposed to blathering out hate-filled talking points we've heard over and over. By the by, you really cannot have a "War on Terror" it is impossible, Terror is an ideology that has existing since the beginning of time, you cannot have a war on an ideology. So yes, "The War on Terror" is a bumper sticker, to invoke fear in Americans... Do we face a great and (thanks to Bush) growing threat from extremists? Yes and Edwards knows that to win it, we must end poverty around the world and truly educate the young minds so they do not need to latch onto extremism.

America is going to hell in a handbasket and people are talking about haircuts? First of all, the haircutter went to Edwards and so charged for travel time. So the actual haircut was less. But good for the haircutter for making some dough. But that isn't why the corporate media and its dittoheads are going after Edwards. He's not controllable. He's questioning the status quo. He's rocking the boat. Or rocking the yacht. Edwards has really good ideas on how to get the country back on track. He's smart, aggressive and unrelenting in his commitment to our lost liberty. Individual freedom was our most treasured right as Americans. And it's gone down the tubes. Edwards is calling on us to recognize that with freedom comes moral obligations to each other. It's time to end the Gospel of Greed and restore the ability of our children to get ahead. I'd love to talk about single payer heathcare or how to rearrange the federal budget, but talk of haircuts should be left to "In Style" magazine. Not someplace that purports to be serious about politics.

In the MSNBC debate, Brian Williams asked Edwards how he can tout his populace message while receiving 400 cuts ?? Of caorce he dodged the question, ignoring it, and he came back with another pandering to the bleeding heart story about how his father: the Mill Worker who couldn't afford to pay for the family post church Sunday Dinner at some restaurant, so they all had to leave before ordering ??.......boo hoo hoo

Don't believe a word that come outs of this ambulance chasers mouth !! this guy is a snake oil salesman !!! this guy is a slug !!! and he's going after the most gullible part of the electorate the soft hearted liberal women! everything he says is tailor made to pander to their vote !! he is a pandering sycophant !!! he will make them cry and they will vote for him ,and he stands for nothing but himself !!! next time you see him on TV, watch for the disingenuous tongue wag! and the look on his face that says I'm so special! the fake smile, that never leaves his face!! why is Edward so popular and the "should be" hero of the left, Kucinich is not ?? Gee !! i wonder why ??? what did Kerry say "he has good hair" you guys are being played by a "Southern slow talking" fast talking lawyer !!

"I'm the son of a mill worker"........."somewhere in America a 6 yr old girl is going to bed hungry"............."we can do it, we can do it together?................."my wife has terminal cancer"..........smile, eye flirt ,tongue wag, smile .........." please vote for me"

FLIP, FLIP, FLIP, FLIP, FLIP, FLIP

Senator John Edwards, when asked about "Axis of Evil" countries Iran, Iraq, and North Korea:

"I mean, we have three different countries that, while they all present serious problems for the United States -- they're dictatorships, they're involved in the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction -- you know, the most imminent, clear and present threat to our country is not the same from those three countries. I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country."

Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina) During an interview on CNN's "Late Edition" February 24, 2002

John Edwards, while voting YES to the Resolution authorizing US military force against Iraq:

"Others argue that if even our allies support us, we should not support this resolution because confronting Iraq now would undermine the long-term fight against terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. Yet, I believe that this is not an either-or choice. Our national security requires us to do both, and we can."

Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina) US Senate floor statement: "Authorization of the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq" October 10, 2002

"As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It's about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability -- a capability that could be less than a year away.

The path of confronting Saddam is full of hazards. But the path of inaction is far more dangerous. This week, a week where we remember the sacrifice of thousands of innocent Americans made on 9-11, the choice could not be starker. Had we known that such attacks were imminent, we surely would have used every means at our disposal to prevent them and take out the plotters. We cannot wait for such a terrible event -- or, if weapons of mass destruction are used, one far worse -- to address the clear and present danger posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq."

Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina) During an interview on CNN's "Late Edition" February 24, 2002

"I mean, we have three different countries that, while they all present serious problems for the United States -- they're dictatorships, they're involved in the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction -- you know, the most imminent, clear and present threat to our country is not the same from those three countries. I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country."

*****

John Edwards, while voting YES to the Resolution authorizing US military force against Iraq:

"Others argue that if even our allies support us, we should not support this resolution because confronting Iraq now would undermine the long-term fight against terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. Yet, I believe that this is not an either-or choice. Our national security requires us to do both, and we can."

****

Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina) Addressing the US Senate September 12, 2002

"As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It's about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability -- a capability that could be less than a year away.

I believe that Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime represents a clear threat to the United States, to our allies, to our interests around the world, and to the values of freedom and democracy we hold dear.

What's more, the terrorist threat against America is all too clear. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam's arsenal, and there is every possibility that he could turn his weapons over to these terrorists. No one can doubt that if the terrorists of September 11th had weapons of mass destruction, they would have used them. On September 12, 2002, we can hardly ignore the terrorist threat, and the serious danger that Saddam would allow his arsenal to be used in aid of terror.

The time has come for decisive action. With our allies, we must do whatever is necessary to guard against the threat posed by an Iraq armed with weapons of mass destruction, and under the thumb of Saddam Hussein.

The United States must lead an international effort to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein -- and to assure that Iraq fulfills its obligations to the international community.

This is not an easy decision, and it carries many risks. It will also carry costs, certainly in resources, and almost certainly in lives. After careful consideration, I believe that the risk of inaction is far greater than the risk of action.

We must address the most insidious threat posed by weapons of mass destruction -- the threat that comes from the ability of terrorists to obtain them.

The path of confronting Saddam is full of hazards. But the path of inaction is far more dangerous. This week, a week where we remember the sacrifice of thousands of innocent Americans made on 9-11, the choice could not be starker. Had we known that such attacks were imminent, we surely would have used every means at our disposal to prevent them and take out the plotters. We cannot wait for such a terrible event -- or, if weapons of mass destruction are used, one far worse -- to address the clear and present danger posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq."

***

Today, John Edwards says the War of Terror is a "bumper sticker slogan"; he admits he never even read the intelligence report before he YES to authorize the president TO GO TO WAR... and he blames Bob Schrum saying "Bob made me do it!" Did Bob write his senate floor speach for him too? How can the man yackilate like that and then turn around and say he didn't mean any of it? How can ANYone believe a damn thing he says NOW?... "I'm for it, I'm against it, the risk of inaction is far greater than the risk of action... we shouldn't have gone to war... wait... how does my hair look?"

you cannot have a war on an ideology

Do you feel the same way about the war against the Nazi mentality?

Edwards knows that to win it, we must end poverty around the world and truly educate the young minds so they do not need to latch onto extremism

Osama bin Laden grew up in a wealthy family, was highly educated and inherited an estimated $250 million dollars.

So much for your "end" poverty and educate the young minds" will solve the world's problems theory.

Osama bin Laden grew up in a wealthy family, was highly educated and inherited an estimated $250 million dollars.

So much for your "end" poverty and educate the young minds" will solve the world's problems theory.

I never said that it would solve the worlds problems, but it is a step in the right direction. What is your answer? Nuke 'em? Turn Iraq into rubble? Kill 'em all?

Also, last I checked the Nazi movement was a State led movement by a popularly elected leader... Am I wrong on that... Please correct me if I am. There is a reason Islam is angry with the West and people like Bush and Cheney will never understand that.